Ti and Fi

The most important teaching of socionics is that we all see reality distorted according to our personal preferences. And only those who are different from us are capable of noticing it.

Since I'm a Fi valuer myself, it is my turn to explain how deformed the views of the Ti valuers are.

Ti is small scale logics and Fi is large scale logics. A Ti valuer has a natural tendency to analyze stuff in a detached way. Sees a statement and any given information and determines wheter there is coherence, validity and the like. Ti is the ability to present ideas in a way they require nothing else to be understood; encapsulated.

Fi valuers, however, do not communicate in such a way. Fi valuers have an intelligence which is associative and when presenting an idea, they simply share the filter which arranged the existing information in an specific way (Fi). Their natural interlocutor is a Te valuer, who knows a lot of information and uses the Fi filter to arrange his own information in that particular way, to arrive to the same conclusion the Fi valuer has. Te valuers analyze the factual aspect of the communication and notice when an association is being made on false grounds. They use Ti, but it is subordinated to Te.

When Fi and Ti types do not understand each other, it is always because Ti valuers are unable to compensate for information which is not explicitely shared (because they use Te, but it is ultimately subordinated to Ti), or are unable to build their own frameworks to understand the relationship between raw information when there is none given explicitely.

Conclusion: Ti is the innability to understand complex ways to handle information.

Since I'm a Fi valuer myself, it is my turn to explain how deformed the views of the Ti valuers are.

Originally Posted by mikemex

Conclusion: Ti is the innability to understand complex ways to handle information.

lol what

Both Fi and Ti egos are equally capable of understanding complexity in dealing with information; it's just that they do it in different, incompatible ways. You can't honestly say that Ti egos can't understand complex ways of handling information because they do, just in ways you can't understand.

The most important teaching of socionics is that we all see reality distorted according to our personal preferences. And only those who are different from us are capable of noticing it.

Since I'm a Fi valuer myself, it is my turn to explain how deformed the views of the Ti valuers are.

Ti is small scale logics and Fi is large scale logics. A Ti valuer has a natural tendency to analyze stuff in a detached way. Sees a statement and any given information and determines wheter there is coherence, validity and the like. Ti is the ability to present ideas in a way they require nothing else to be understood; encapsulated.

Fi valuers, however, do not communicate in such a way. Fi valuers have an intelligence which is associative and when presenting an idea, they simply share the filter which arranged the existing information in an specific way (Fi). Their natural interlocutor is a Te valuer, who knows a lot of information and uses the Fi filter to arrange his own information in that particular way, to arrive to the same conclusion the Fi valuer has. Te valuers analyze the factual aspect of the communication and notice when an association is being made on false grounds. They use Ti, but it is subordinated to Te.

When Fi and Ti types do not understand each other, it is always because Ti valuers are unable to compensate for information which is not explicitely shared (because they use Te, but it is ultimately subordinated to Ti), or are unable to build their own frameworks to understand the relationship between raw information when there is none given explicitely.

Conclusion: Ti is the innability to understand complex ways to handle information.

BLAH BLAH BLAH. This whole post can be summed up as:

HEY GUYS! I'M AN FI-VALUER, SO I'M BETTER THAN YOU!

You do not understand large-scale socionics, and are misusing it to justify why you're better than people.

Not all Ti-valuers have "deformed views". It would be healthier if you considered that some of the people you disagree with perhaps could still be in your own quadra, and not use socionics to justify why your views are better than others.

When Fi and Ti types do not understand each other, it is always because Ti valuers are unable to compensate for information which is not explicitly shared (because they use Te, but it is ultimately subordinated to Ti), or are unable to build their own frameworks to understand the relationship between raw information when there is none given explicitly.

THAT in particular is just..... LOL. BECAUSE WHEN AN FI VALUER AND A TI VALUER DON'T UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER IT IS BECAUSE OF THE TI VALUER. i am giggling so much right now. you're hilarious.

lol @ mikemex's ego. just lololol at the arrogant ego thinking its better.

When anybody attacks with their ego, it means their true self is hurt. Wanna talk about it mikemex?

Now she'll just say 'You're using your Fe to judge my post as emotionally arrogant when there isn't really the issue' or something like that. The things people do to excuse themselves of being assholes.

Just more fuel for my art. Keep it coming guys. You're gonna make me famous one day.

The most important teaching of socionics is that we all see reality distorted according to our personal preferences.

Not always true. Anybody can train themselves to be objective if they try hard enough. It just takes more effort, and most people are lazy by default, so we operate on ego-basis reality. Also there really isn't much point in being objective, unless you're making art or something. (the subjective perception mixed with the objective reality)

There doesn't seem to be any self-gain for being objective that way, so most people don't do it. But really, it's the only thing that ever makes anyone happy.

All an individual does is have to *try* and work at it. It's spiritually satisfying undoing your own ego and your own projections about things. Like for example your perception that you think in a more complicated and sophisticated way than me.

THAT in particular is just..... LOL. BECAUSE WHEN AN FI VALUER AND A TI VALUER DON'T UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER IT IS BECAUSE OF THE TI VALUER. i am giggling so much right now. you're hilarious.

Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves

lol @ mikemex's ego. just lololol at the arrogant ego thinking its better.

When anybody attacks with their ego, it means their true self is hurt. Wanna talk about it mikemex?

Now she'll just say 'You're using your Fe to judge my post as emotionally arrogant when there isn't really the issue' or something like that. The things people do to excuse themselves of being assholes.

Just more fuel for my art. Keep it coming guys. You're gonna make me famous one day.

IEIs. You both relax me. It is more a lol thing, I shouldn't have been so harsh.

Sorry mikemex that, for whatever reason you drew your conclusions, you were misunderstood. Obviously your ideas and insight are important. Obviously you'll get things that others won't. But it doesn't mean your ideas are better than others, that's all.

Sorry you've been misunderstood. Or are perhaps surrounded by people whose views are so different than your own. There are a lot of stupid people out there, that's for sure.

I for one appreciated this. Subjective descriptions of functions are quite useful, and we have had an unbalanced share of Ti valuers highlighting all the flaws of Fi. And while, of course, I gladly assert that any type is capable of complex thinking, I think I see, to a degree, what you mean: Ti is incapable of understanding implicit information, framework information. Fi gives the framework and assumes the content inputs. Ti has to see each place where the content and framework interact, meticulously. Also, Ti tends not to operate on the heuristic (of how to reason, or how to interpret data), but is the application of the heuristic (of interpretation) to the data. (Of course, Ti can and does generate heuristical maxims of how to do something, from experience, especially TiSe). So what's the natural fit of Ti, then?

The most important teaching of socionics is that we all see reality distorted according to our personal preferences. And only those who are different from us are capable of noticing it.

Since I'm a Fi valuer myself, it is my turn to explain how deformed the views of the Ti valuers are.

Ti is small scale logics and Fi is large scale logics. A Ti valuer has a natural tendency to analyze stuff in a detached way. Sees a statement and any given information and determines wheter there is coherence, validity and the like. Ti is the ability to present ideas in a way they require nothing else to be understood; encapsulated.

Fi valuers, however, do not communicate in such a way. Fi valuers have an intelligence which is associative and when presenting an idea, they simply share the filter which arranged the existing information in an specific way (Fi). Their natural interlocutor is a Te valuer, who knows a lot of information and uses the Fi filter to arrange his own information in that particular way, to arrive to the same conclusion the Fi valuer has. Te valuers analyze the factual aspect of the communication and notice when an association is being made on false grounds. They use Ti, but it is subordinated to Te.

When Fi and Ti types do not understand each other, it is always because Ti valuers are unable to compensate for information which is not explicitely shared (because they use Te, but it is ultimately subordinated to Ti), or are unable to build their own frameworks to understand the relationship between raw information when there is none given explicitely.

Conclusion: Ti is the innability to understand complex ways to handle information.

Flame War aside, I have a serious question. Based on what logic is any given element more efficient at identifying (or describing) any other element? Based on my understanding, each of the information elements is capable of identifying the belying behaviors of each of the other elements.

There isn't much to add to this thread, really. Every element has its handicaps and its strengths; to say " sucks, and my favored IME is so much better," is kinda stupid. types apparently feel that way about your favored IME, too.

I still like these:
Ti = Mental Caregiver / Emotional Victim
Fi = Emotional Caregiver / Mental Victim
"Stupid" might actually be a good word for the unhealthy end of the Fi spectrum, but it is not all that makes up the function.

Your own prejudice. I never claimed to be any better, I just said that being Fi myself I can pinpoint exactly how Ti valuers deform reality. Where did I say that I don't deform it myself?

I just say that there are two and not one, aspects to truth: coherence (form) and empirical validity (substance). It is a common issue among Ti valuers to take for granted that the logical consistency of an statement automatically makes it either true or false. We all know what happens then one applies sound logic to absurd things: the theological discussions of the middle age are a good example.

See this:

Originally Posted by W.I.E. Gates

Then there is the man who drowned while crossing a stream that was, on average, 6 inches deep.

Such confusion comes from the fact that Ti valuers analyze stuff in a detached way, this is, without a broader context in mind. But why this happens is more interesting. Logic is exacting and thus impractical for handling complexity, simply because complexity means a large number of variables and the more the variables, the more the processing power requiered. People such as Ray Kurzweil (ILE) go as far as to claim that the issue of artificial intelligence is mere brute force, which is ignorant, to say the least. This is the deformation of reality I was talking about: Kurzweil presents the problem the way he understands it, assuming it is the only way.

If logical analysis is one form of thinking what is the other? Well, it is statistical analysis. Statistics exchanges small scale coherence for large scale efficiency. Thus, Fi valuers are capable of handling an almost infninite number of variables at the expense of not being exacting. Think in terms of digital vs analog recordings.

My point remains: True complexity is the field of competence of Fi valuers.

Your own prejudice. I never claimed to be any better, I just said that being Fi myself I can pinpoint exactly how Ti valuers deform reality. Where did I say that I don't deform it myself?

It's not that you said that you don't deform it yourself, it's that you didn't say you did deform it yourself. Get the logic? Therefore it was offensive. Also that you said Ti was incapable of handling complex information, without mentioning the opposite side of the assumption, that Fi is incapable of handling simple information.

Also, I would like to see the 'assumed' threads where Ti people bash on Fi. Not that a counterattack is a justified healthy response, but it'd be more understandable.

Originally Posted by mikemex

See this:

Was there a point to that quote? (Metaphors without explanations annoy me) So, the average depth of the stream was 6 inches, (actually enough to drown in, you can drown in a cup of water technically), but who's to say it wasn't several feet deep in some places? Are you just saying, that as an example Ti naturally 'assumes' or 'classifies' things in a very simple manner, considering the use of an average, as opposed to seeing the big picture?

Originally Posted by mikemex

My point remains: True complexity is the field of competence of Fi valuers.

Perhaps. I'm not arguing with your insights/points that perhaps Fi valuers excel at complexity moreso than Ti, but to say that Ti is "unable" is just wrong. And close-minded.

Originally Posted by Crispy

I agree that Fi valuers make things complicated, and Ti valuers simplify things.

I generally agree with this.

Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis

Complaining about black-and-white thinking and not accounting for variables sounds like a valued/devalued issue, not vs .

Exactly. I think, in general, mikemex is confusing their insights between Fi and Ti, when really, it's about valued Ne, appreciating complexity.

Originally Posted by mikemex

My point remains: True complexity is the field of competence of Fi valuers.

I know I said "perhaps" already. But, on 2nd thoughts, that's a pretty crazy statement, to say that Fi-devaluers, namely Ti-valuers, can't have complexity in their field of competency.

Originally Posted by mikemex

People such as Ray Kurzweil (ILE) go as far as to claim that the issue of artificial intelligence is mere brute force, which is ignorant, to say the least. This is the deformation of reality I was talking about: Kurzweil presents the problem the way he understands it, assuming it is the only way.

How can you assume what he's assuming (How can you assume what's in his head? That's very subjective.)? By that quote even, I don't think he's assuming his way is the only way. That's just his expression.

That's your assumption. You're assuming ILEs can't handle complexity, or think their way is the only way, when that's not the case.

Do give more examples of ILEs. Ne as a control in our test. Ti and Fi as the independent variables. Let's hear more false assumptions of presumed ILEs believing their way is the "only" way.

Not that this is worth even arguing with someone so close-minded to not see the open-mindedness in others (namely ILEs), but what the heck. It's ironic but I'll give it a shot.

I think that rather than say "distorted views of reality," the OP should have said "biased views of reality". Clearly, we see or seek some aspects of reality, and do not see or seek other aspects of reality. Our perceptions of reality are based primarily on the Ego block and the Demonstrative function (or at least, that is how I understand it), and since information of all the IM elements exists, I think "bias" is a suitable word to describe how we tailor reality to fit our predominant elements and avoid information from elements we don't like.

Even still... I can't say I agree with the OP. Where are you coming to your conclusions; on what data?

Also, there is clear arrogance and bias in your post which makes me question whether you are presenting information factually without putting your own interpretation on it.

My conclusion is that your conclusion essentially has no basis and is merely a product of extreme personal bias or misunderstanding.

F functions conclude from generalizations. They differ from N functions in that they close off an issue based on the generalization rather than starting an investigation into the issue. In Fi's case it means exactly that the complex matter is judged without being fully reviewed. A unit of Te (i.e. empirically direct distinction) is seen as the sole warranty for the judgment. No matter how many other details of the topic are examined, the F judgment locks down the conclusion on behalf of all other facets to the issue.

The most important teaching of socionics is that we all see reality distorted according to our personal preferences. And only those who are different from us are capable of noticing it.

Since I'm a Fi valuer myself, it is my turn to explain how deformed the views of the Ti valuers are.

Ti is small scale logics and Fi is large scale logics. A Ti valuer has a natural tendency to analyze stuff in a detached way. Sees a statement and any given information and determines wheter there is coherence, validity and the like. Ti is the ability to present ideas in a way they require nothing else to be understood; encapsulated.

Fi valuers, however, do not communicate in such a way. Fi valuers have an intelligence which is associative and when presenting an idea, they simply share the filter which arranged the existing information in an specific way (Fi). Their natural interlocutor is a Te valuer, who knows a lot of information and uses the Fi filter to arrange his own information in that particular way, to arrive to the same conclusion the Fi valuer has. Te valuers analyze the factual aspect of the communication and notice when an association is being made on false grounds. They use Ti, but it is subordinated to Te.

When Fi and Ti types do not understand each other, it is always because Ti valuers are unable to compensate for information which is not explicitely shared (because they use Te, but it is ultimately subordinated to Ti), or are unable to build their own frameworks to understand the relationship between raw information when there is none given explicitely.

Conclusion: Ti is the innability to understand complex ways to handle information.

I disagree. On a societal level, Ti and Fi are symbiotic. Fi is the rock upon which society is built. It accepts the fundamental reactions that it is programmed to have by its' culture and surroundings and proceeds to blindly obey them. Now you might be thinking that sounds awful, and without considering its purpose in the greater scheme of things, it would be. The point is a stagnant society will die, but so will one what changes too rapidly, which is exactly what Ti does, examining things for their actual value without cultural or emotional context, driving evolution, but left untempered this could easily lead to destruction with the implementation of a few ideas that are a little bit off kilter, and that is why you Fi rocks provide the perfect medium for Ti to sculpt the future upon, not too soft. We wouldn't want to get overeager and chip away too fast lest we run out of a medium to bring form and order to, in which case existence would be meaningless.

Arctures: delta just produces boring people
Arctures: but that's how we like it

vero: who needs a real person
vero: That's why I date an SLI

dolphin: someone tell gulanzon adjusting shower water to the right temperature is not si